COMPARE THE LIFE CYCLE COST OF YOUR BMPs
BMP Comparison: Installation Time
Filtrexx SiltSoxx® is the quickest, easiest and most cost effective solution for sediment control.
Easily installed for a variety of construction applications, SiltSoxx reduces the labor cost required for installation and maintenance, while delivering optimal performance.
Watch the video to compare installation times of SiltSoxx, silt fence and straw wattle.
BMP Comparison: Maintenance
Temporary sediment control devices are used on construction sites to protect water quality in nearby streams, rivers, lakes and seas from sediment in stormwater runoff. BMP failures may require regular maintenance, extra costs, and fees.
is the original compost filter sock. SiltSoxx is a three dimensional tubular device filled with Filtrexx FilterMedia™
encased in Filtrexx Mesh™. It is a superior sediment control
alternative to silt fence and straw wattles because sediment is trapped in AND behind SiltSoxx. SiltSoxx are in compliance with most state and federal agencies, including: US EPA, AASHTO, US ACE and USDA NRCS.
Silt fence, also commonly called "filter fence", is widely used on construction sites in North America and elsewhere, due to its low cost and simple design. However, the effectiveness in controlling sediment can be limited, due to problems with installation, placement, and inadequate maintenance. Most importantly, it offers no filtration features as it is usually made of solid film/fabric.
A straw wattle is a tubular device made of woven mesh netting filled with straw or hay. Straw wattles fall into the Sediment Retention Fiber Rolls (SRFRs) category, according to the Erosion Control Technology Council. Straw wattle is lighter in weight than compost filter sock, however the lightweight material requires more staking, which results in more labor costs. The staking points also create more low points, which are more likely to overtop with sediment.
Off-spec compost sock is product that has not been tested to meet federal and state specifications. If off-spec compost sock does not meet strict compost filtering material guidelines, it may have a low flow-through rate, which will cause overtopping due to increased ponding and hydraulic pressure behind the device.
BMP Comparison: Performance
Performance of sediment control barriers is an increasing concern to designers, regulators, and contractors. In order to evaluate the sediment control performance between various sediment control barriers, these practices must be subject to the same standardized testing procedure or evaluated in controlled side-by-side testing. Testing conducted at TRI Laboratory does both.
Key Research Findings
- Staking, weight, and level surface are primary drivers in sediment removal performance. For example, more staking on straw wattles creates more low points, which are more likely to overtop.
- Filtrexx SiltSoxx (8”) performs better than all larger diameter tubular products.
- Compared to 12” off-spec compost sock, Filtrexx SiltSoxx (8” and 12”) performed 15% and 30% better, respectively.
- Filtrexx SiltSoxx (12″) delivers the best performance
- Download the BMP Comparison overview (PDF)
BMP Comparison: Total Project Cost
When comparing total project costs, areas to consider include: product cost, installation cost, maintenance cost, and removal cost.
According to the US EPA, their Excel Erosion Control Calculator “is designed to help landscaping and construction companies estimate the cost of using environmentally beneficial compost filter berms or compost filter socks for erosion control, rather than conventional silt fences. The Cost Calculator demonstrates that environmentally preferable erosion control methods are very cost competitive for all project sizes and durations, and that they offer significant savings for projects that run for more than a few months.”
Learn more with this blog post: Take Control of Your Erosion Control BMP Total Costs
- Sediment Removal Efficiency (removal efficiency performance may vary under conditions different from those tested and reported here)
- SiltSoxx: TRI-Environmental, ASTM D6459. [PDF] TechLink #3333 and TechLink #3334
- Silt fence: San Diego State University, Modified ASTM D6459. [PDF] TechLink #3331
- Straw wattle: Data from TRI-Environmental, ASTM D6459. [PDF] TechLink #3333
- Off-spec filter sock: Data from TRI-Environmental, ASTM D6459. [PDF] TechLink #3333
- Rock/gravel bag: Soil Control Lab, ASTM D3977-97C. [PDF] TechLink #3332
- Installation Time Comparison: Performed by Clearwater Colorado (2015) [Video] click here
- Maintenance Comparison: EPA Erosion Control Alternatives Cost Calculator (2006). [PDF] click here [XLS] click here
- Total Project Costs Comparison: EPA Erosion Control Alternatives Cost Calculator (2006). [PDF] click here [XLS] click here
- 2006 Storm Water Authority – SiltSoxx Design [PDF] click here
- 2006 ASABE USDA-ARS FilterSoxx vs Silt Fence Research [PDF] click here
- 2009 JSWC – Compost Filter Sock, Mulch Berms and Hay Bale Field Performance [PDF] click here
Sediment removal data is based on strictly controlled and repeatable testing conditions and is only an indicator of performance. Field conditions are extremely variable, therefore, sediment removal performance in the field will also vary considerably from site to site, and between storm events on the same site. For this reason Filtrexx does not guarantee compliance or specific quantifiable field performance for SiltSoxx.